您现在的位置: 首页 > 业务指南
2019-05-31 22:22:14








Daenerys was right:

King’s Landing had to burn



Game of Thrones’ Daenerys Targaryen was not a “mad queen” (and, indeed, it’s somewhat unclear how mad her supposedly insane father ever was), Jon Snow was wrong to stab her to death in the series finale, and the new elective monarchy set up by a hastily assembled Great Council of the Lords of Westeros represents a step back in terms of political development.


Her death was a tragedy that reflects, on some level, the very same Stark family naivet about politics that was such a heavy point of emphasis on the beginning of the series.


And despite the Starks’ seemingly good-natured instincts on a personal level, their approach to leadership is going to accomplish nothing useful for the long-suffering ordinary people of Westeros.


Some form of actual democratic governance — as proposed by Grand Maester Samwell Tarly — would have been an enormous step forward.


But it was laughed out of bounds by the high lords of the Seven Kingdoms who proceeded to set up a form of government that serves their narrow interests, while doing nothing to address the many serious problems afflicting the continent.


Daenerys isn’t crazy


The underlying presumption of the actions undertaken by Varys, Tyrion, and Jon over the course of Game of Thrones’ final few episodes is that Daenerys is in some sense unstable, as reflected by her willingness to harm the civilian population of King’s Landing.


But this simply isn’t true.


Daenerys has an objective — to induce the Lords of Westeros to bend the knee and acknowledge her supremacy — and her attack on King’s Landing in “The Bells” was well-calibrated to achieve that objective.


She had previously offered Queen Cersei the opportunity surrender, and Cersei refused — packing the city with civilians and ringing it with air defenses that pose a lethal threat to Drogon, Daenerys’s one remaining dragon.


A combination of skilled piloting and poor marksmanship allowed Daenerys to overcome the city’s air defenses, destroy the Golden Company, and induce the Lannisters to attempt to surrender.


If Daenerys had simply allowed King’s Landing to surrender without consequences only after she evaded its air defenses, then every other recalcitrant lord in the Seven Kingdoms would have incentive to resist her.


After all, it only takes a lucky shot or two to bring down the dragon — and the Queen riding him — and if she manages to burn your scorpions, you can always just surrender.


The Breaker of Chains can be l《权利的游戏》并没有烂尾!这才是实际的政治,龙妈没有疯egitimately faulted for not explaining the strategic logic of her actions to key subordinates before the battle began.


But in her defense, those same key subordinates had spent the previous days spreading treasonous talk about Jon Snow being the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, so she can perhaps be forgiven for not fully taking them into her confidence.


Making an example of King’s Landing was a harsh decision. It was a cruel decision. And it’s certainly a decision whose morality one could question. But it wasn’t a “crazy” decision or the act of a Mad Queen — it was a rational calculation based on a clear-eyed assessment of the strategic situation.


One should further note that while Daenerys’s critics were obsessed with rumors that Jon was the trueborn son of Rhaegar Targaryen, they missed the fact that his newly revealed heritage implies that the Baratheon/Stark rebellion against the crown was based largely on fake news about Lyanna Stark.


That, in turn, raises the question of whether the entire “Mad King” narrative — and thus the supposed genetic infirmity that makes Daenerys so suspect — isn’t itself a bit of propaganda.


The only real consistent through-line in all of this is that Westeros’s great houses oppose the creation of an effective central government.


The nobility likes a weak king


Many fans have observed that there was no real reason for the participants in the Great Council to believe that Bran would be a good king, and that Tyrion’s arguments in Bran’s favor seemed extremely weak.


But that’s simply a matter of perspective. If what you mean by a “good king” is a king who will rule in the interests of the broad mass of people, then something like the Tarly proposal for a democratic election would make sen《权利的游戏》并没有烂尾!这才是实际的政治,龙妈没有疯se.


But they of course rejected that out of hand. What《权利的游戏》并没有烂尾!这才是实际的政治,龙妈没有疯 they want is a king who will be good for the upper ranks of the nobility, which actually means a weak and ineffective king.


Bran’s basic indifference to governance means that the likes of Edmure, Bronn, Gendry, and whoever is now running Dorne will have a free hand to rule their domains as they see fit.


That’s nice for them, and fine for the smallfolk who happen to luck into competent and moral masters, but it’s potentially a disaster for others.


In a practical sense, ordinary Westerosi are shown to be much more vulnerable to the problems with weak central governance than to tyranny from King’s Landing.